DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-23, 26, 27, 30-32, 35, 36, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al(US 2017/0047976 A1) (hereinafter “Noh”) in view of Rahman et al(US 2020/0295813 A1)(hereinafter “Rahman”).
Regarding Claim 21, Noh discloses one or more processors (Noh: Figure 15, element 1530 with [0126-0133]) configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from the UE, a first sounding reference signal (SRS) on an uplink (UL) channel(Noh: Figure 8 with [0072-0073] – UE transmits SRS 835 to eNB); generating, for transmission to the UE, a first channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) on a downlink (DL) channel(Noh: Figure 8 with [0074-0075], [0107]-[0109] and Fig. 13, – UE receives CSI-RSs 811, 813, and 815 from eNB); receiving, from the UE, a first CSI report including first CSI-RS measurements(Noh: Figure 8 with [0074-0076] – the UE reports CSIs 830, 840, and 850 for the received CSI-RSs, to the eNB);
receiving, from the UE, a second SRS on the UL channel(Noh: Figure 8 with [0077] – UE transmits SRS 865 to the eNB); generating, for transmission to the UE, a second CSI-RS on the DL channel(Noh: Figure 8 with [0077-0078] – UE receives CSI-RS from eNB including a beamforming update 821, wherein the beamforming for the UE may be changed or maintained.); and receiving, from the UE, a second CSI report including the second CSI-RS measurements(Noh: Figure 8 with [0078] - the UE reports CSIs 860 and 870 to the eNB for the received CSI-RSs.).
Noh does not explicitly teach, generating, for transmission to a user equipment (UE), a Type II-port selection codebook configuration that includes a frequency basis parameter.
Rahman taches, generating, for transmission to a user equipment (UE), a Type II-port selection codebook configuration that includes a frequency basis parameter([0151], [0152], [0271] and Figs. 14, the BS configured to generate and transmit higher layer configuration parameters to a UE. The parameters configurating a Type II codebook subset restriction and include components (such as parameter N3 and basis vector Wf) that controls the frequency basis for the codebook calculation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Noh by incorporating the teaching of Rahman, since such modification would enable the gNB to select appropriate communication parameters to efficiently and effectively perform wireless data communication with the UE, as suggested by Rahman([0003]).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Noh and Rahman taches all of the claim limitations Noh further teaches, the or more processors of claim 21, wherein the first CSI-RS includes a first configuration of CSI-RS parameters based on the first SRS(Noh: Figure 8 with [0074-0076] – the CSI-RSs include CSI-RS information and beamforming configuration.), wherein the second CSI-RS includes a second configuration of CSI-RS parameters based on the second SRS(Noh: Figure 8 with [0077-0078] – UE receives CSI-RS from eNB including a beamforming update 821, wherein the beamforming for the UE may be changed or maintained.), wherein the first configuration of CSI-RS parameters includes a first number of nonzero power CSI-RS (NZP-CSI-RS) resources and the second configuration of CSI-RS parameters includes a second number of NZP-CSI-RS resources (Noh: Figure 8 and [0085-0088] – after the base station receives first and second SRS from UE, UE receives information related to a measurement restriction window in which NZP-CSI-RS information is included.), and wherein the first number of NZP-CSI-RS resources is different than the second number of NZP-CSI-RS resources (Noh: [0085-0088] – Tables 2 and 3 describe a value per NP-CSI-RS.).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Noh and Rahman taches all of the claim limitations Noh further teaches,the one or more processors of claim 22, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting, to the UE, a radio resource control (RRC) transmission configuring a maximum number of NZP-CSI-RS resources (Noh: [0079], [0085-0088] – NZP-CSI-RS is received via RRC (control signaling from eNB), wherein as part of a measurement restriction threshold, a limitation on the number of CSI is reported, thus a maximum number of NZP-CSI-RS is transmitted.).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Noh and Rahman taches all of the claim limitations Noh further teaches, the one or more processors of claim 21, wherein the first CSI-RS includes a first configuration of CSI-RS parameters based on the first SRS(Noh: Figure 8 with [0074-0076] – the CSI-RSs include CSI-RS information and beamforming configuration.), wherein the second CSI-RS includes a second configuration of CSI-RS parameters based on the second SRS(Noh: Figure 8 with [0077-0078] – UE receives CSI-RS from eNB including a beamforming update 821, wherein the beamforming for the UE may be changed or maintained.), wherein the first configuration of CSI-RS parameters includes a first number of ports for each CSI-RS resource and the second configuration of CSI-RS parameters includes a second number of ports for each CSI-RS resource (Noh: Figures 1 and 2 with [0037-0038] – each configuration of CSI-RS includes a number of antenna ports per configuration. Examiner notes that along with the description of Figure 8 with [0071-0089], if the UE CSI configuration is unchanged the configuration including the number of ports for a second configuration (860, 870) may be the same as the first configuration (830, 840, 850), or, if the configuration modifies the CSI at UE, the second configuration including the number of ports is different than the first configuration.), and wherein the first number of ports is different than the second number of ports (Noh: [0085-0088] – Tables 2 and 3 describe a value per antenna ports for CSI-RS. See also Figures 1 and 2 with [0037-0038].).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Noh and Rahman taches all of the claim limitations Noh further teaches, the one or more processors of claim 26, wherein the second number of ports is the same for each CSI-RS resource (Noh: Figures 1 and 2 with [0037-0038] – each configuration of CSI-RS includes a number of antenna ports per configuration. Examiner notes that along with the description of Figure 8 with [0071-0089], if the UE CSI configuration is unchanged the configuration including the number of ports for a second configuration (860, 870) may be the same as the first configuration (830, 840, 850), or, if the configuration modifies the CSI at UE, the second configuration including the number of ports is different than the first configuration.).
Claims 30-32, 35, and 36, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claims 21-23, 26, and 27, recite similar features as claims 21-23, 26, and 27, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 21-23, 26, and 27. Please see above rejections of claims 21-23, 26, and 27. Noh further discloses the one or more processors in at least Figure 15.
Claims 39 and 40, directed to a method embodiment of claims 21 and 22, recite similar features as claims 21-23, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 21-23. Please see above rejections of claims 21-23.
Claims 28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh and Rahman as applied to claims above, and further in view of Park et al(US 2020/0044802 A1) (hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Noh and Rahman discloses the one or more processors of claim 26, but does not expressly disclose receiving a radio resource control (RRC) transmission configuring a maximum number of ports.
However, Park discloses transmitting, to the UE, a radio resource control (RRC) transmission configuring a maximum number of ports (Park: [0103-0104], [0226-0269] – the maximum number of ports in CSI-RS is preconfigured in RRC, as control signaling from a base station.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify CSI-RS signaling of Noh in view of CSI-RS signaling of Park to indicate a maximum number of ports such that “there is an effect in that more accurate CSI can be obtained because channel measurement and interference measurement are possible at the same timing” by flexibly configuring ports (Park: [0021-0022]).
Claim 37, dependent upon claim 35, recites similar features as claim 28 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 28. Please see above rejection of claim 28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 25, 29, 33, 34, and 38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AWET HAILE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
